4 ms·
Copyright and patents creates artificial scarcity. The things protected are not scarce, they are abundant. Ideas and information are easy to copy/reproduce. So
by juancn 6y ago
Copyright and patents creates artificial scarcity. The things protected are not scarce, they are abundant. Ideas and information are easy to copy/reproduce.
So we built a fake framework on top of something plentiful and cheap to copy, to make it more expensive so some people can make money out of it.
- falcolas 6y agoI agree, they're easy to copy and reproduce. But more importantly, they are not easy to produce in the first place. How do you suggest an author (artist, musician, etc) make a living, if it takes them 6 months of normal working hours to produce a book and they get an expected $0 of revenue from that book?
- juancn 6y agoDonations and live performances as it used to work. Find a Maecenas.
- ccsnags 6y agoSpending time on something people aren’t willing to pay for is always a waste of time, whether you’re writing a book or digging holes. We need to stop assuming that having no copyright means that the work cannot be monetized. It just can’t be monetized as if it was a physical object or service rendered. Vinyl records, tee shirts, patronage, book signings, lectures, anything that isn’t copyright dependent can be monetized easily. The fans of art are aware that paying for it will help create more art they like. This is a personal connection that the fan has with the artist and keeps the art accessible for the casuals.
- falcolas 6y agoWe had that once upon a time (the original version of Patronage), and it resulted in some, but not very much, artwork in the grand scheme of things. Nowhere near the amount we enjoy today with our spare-change subscriptions. Copyright also allows more creators to create without requiring them to be a live personality as well; to split their time between creating and hustling for money.
- donovanian 6y ago> and it resulted in some, but not very much, artwork in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure I follow, my understanding is that patronage, say from the Medici family, led to a proliferation of art.
- cwkoss 6y agoMaybe NFTs
- kmeisthax 6y agoYou're slightly wrong: copies of copyrighted works are abundant. The actual works themselves are scarce.
- ccsnags 6y agoNow we’re getting into the simulacrum. If a work is entirely digital, what is the difference between the original and the copy?
- falcolas 6y agoThe cost of the labor put in to create the original.
- ccsnags 6y agoWhat is the cost if I did it for free?
- falcolas 6y agoWhat well-researched book have you written for free? What hit album have you (and your band-mates) written and performed for free? What feature-length, CGI enhanced movie have you produced, cast, and distributed for free? What TV show have you produced, cast, and distributed for free? I'm not trying to call you out specifically, but your post uses "I", so I'm responding appropriately. For better or worse, garage bands, open source developers, and patreon writers are the vast minority of copyright users.
- adwn 6y ago> If a work is entirely digital, what is the difference between the original and the copy? The difference is that the original instance of the work potentially required considerable time and money, whereas its copies are essentially free to produce. There's no difference between the bits of the "original" and the bits of each copy, but concluding that copies of a work should be free for all because the act of creating that copy is free, is fallacious and intentionally misleading.